NASHVILLE, Tenn. – With last Friday’s release of the Manhattan Declaration – a 4,700-word statement from evangelical, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox signers declaring their commitment to the sanctity of human life, biblical marriage and religious liberty – newly released data from LifeWay Research describe the beliefs of Protestant pastors on these issues, and how often they discuss them in church.

In a telephone survey of 1,002 senior church leaders conducted in October 2008, Protestant pastors who identified themselves as politically conservative or very conservative are more likely to speak to their churches on homosexuality and the unborn than their liberal counterparts, according to Ed Stetzer, director of LifeWay Research.

Eighty-nine percent of very conservative Protestant pastors said they speak to their churches at least once a year on the unborn, and 79 percent indicated they address the topic of homosexuality about once a year or more often. This compares with 25 percent of liberal or very liberal pastors who address the issue of the unborn at least annually, and 53 percent who speak on the topic of homosexuality.

"When you use the language ‘the unborn’ in your question, it impacts your answer," said Stetzer. "Sixty-five percent of all Protestant pastors, regardless of political ideology, talk about the unborn at least once a year. When you filter out the number who would be pro-choice but perhaps would not use that language, 80 percent are speaking on it at least once a year."

Most Protestant pastors whose political ideology is conservative do not believe gay marriage should be legal, but almost half of liberal pastors do. Ninety-nine percent of very conservatives surveyed strongly disagree with the statement, "I believe gay marriage should be legal," compared with 16 percent of pastors who are liberal or very liberal.

"It appears that Protestant pastors are much more vocal about the unborn than about the issue of homosexuality," said Stetzer. "It is interesting to note that in many cases their fervency of belief does not line up with their frequency of comments. For example, 42 percent of all Protestant pastors rarely or never speak on the subject."

On the issue of the unborn, 98 percent of very conservative pastors describe themselves as pro-life, compared with 14 percent of pastors who are liberal or very liberal.

When forced to choose, three-fourths of all Protestant pastors surveyed said they are pro-life, and 13 percent said they are pro-choice.

Among pastors who speak to their congregations on homosexuality several times a year or more, 84 percent also speak on poverty that often. This is significantly higher than among pastors who rarely or never speak on homosexuality, of whom 78 percent speak on poverty several times a year or more.

Likewise, among pastors who speak to their church on the unborn several times a year or more, 85 percent also speak on poverty that often.

"Many will debate which is the driving force: the political beliefs or religious beliefs of these pastors," Stetzer said. "The fact is that most pastors who speak up on the unborn and homosexuality also speak up on poverty and consider Scripture their authority."

Among pastors who strongly disagree that gay marriage should be legal, 98 percent strongly agree with the statement "Our church considers Scripture to be the authority for our church and our lives." In contrast, among pastors who do not strongly disagree that gay marriage should be legal, 71 percent strongly agree that Scripture is their authority.

Similar differences occur between pro-life and pro-choice pastors. Ninety-seven percent of pro-life pastors, compared to 65 percent of pro-choice pastors, strongly agree with the above statement regarding Scriptural authority. Also, 97 percent of pastors who speak to their church on the unborn several times a year or more strongly agree Scripture is their authority.

I have come to vehemently dislike the word "tolerant". This year I moved my kids out of the school they were in to put them into a very small country school where they still pray every morning before classes and have a greater respect for Christian values. The reason...because their old school allowed two eighteen-year-old boys to go to their senior prom dressed like girls and also allowed them to bring male dates. When a multitude of parents complained, we were all told that we should be more "tolerant" of other's differences.

I quit a job at a clinic that began to promote abortion for teenagers. Several of us in the office tried to speak our opinion on the subject and basically begged for this not to happen. We were told that we should be more "tolerant" of the choices that people make in their lives.

I agree, Rob. No matter what religion someone is, how can you call yourself a Christian if you think these things are okay. I don't "hate" anyone for their lifestyle or life choices. But I am not tolerant of them either. I had a good friend in high school that "came out of the closet" after we graduated. I don't hate him. I love him in Christian love. I pray for him daily. But I do not tolerate his lifestyle.

Our country has become so backwards in our morals. It started out that people were sinners if they had sex before marriage or had sexual feelings for someone of the same sex. Murder was murder. Now, we're considered blind or stupid if we think that our kids won't have sex before they are married. We're not being a good Christian if we don't tolerate homosexuality because "God made them that way." And, could someone define at what point its really murder?

The word "tolerance" does not appear in the Bible. I would never judge anyone committing the sins of abortion or homosexuality because that is definitely not my place. What is my place is to teach my children how to be God fearing Christians. I do not believe in "hating" or "judging" anyone for their particular lifestyle. I love all people because we are all children of God. We are all sinners.

I think the original post was put on here because the poster seems to be concerned about how liberal the values in this country have become. I definitely agree. Being so tolerant of obvious sinful behaviors by passing laws that make those behaviors okay is what has led to the Christian values this country was founded on being greatly diminished.

HRoberson

Tolerance appears as many times as Trinity, but is actually a more clearly described concept. Statements such as "bear one another's burdens," "he who has no sin cast the first stone," "why do you judge your brother," or "the fruit of the Spirit is ... patience" make it clear that Christians approach others with consideration, compassion, and attempts to understand where the other is.

Other statements such as "correct a brother carefully lest you fall into a trap," or "do not even eat with such a one" certainly appear to contradict the first. These however seem to be exceptions to the first desire and speak usually to correcting a Believer's gross violations of the faith. But even in these examples, the point is restoration, not condemnation.

Tolerance then is a key Christian concept and one we come to hate at our own peril.

Logged

ex cathedra

Tolerance appears as many times as Trinity, but is actually a more clearly described concept. Statements such as "bear one another's burdens," "he who has no sin cast the first stone," "why do you judge your brother," or "the fruit of the Spirit is ... patience" make it clear that Christians approach others with consideration, compassion, and attempts to understand where the other is.

Other statements such as "correct a brother carefully lest you fall into a trap," or "do not even eat with such a one" certainly appear to contradict the first. These however seem to be exceptions to the first desire and speak usually to correcting a Believer's gross violations of the faith. But even in these examples, the point is restoration, not condemnation.

Tolerance then is a key Christian concept and one we come to hate at our own peril.

Tolerance means that we are loving toward sinners. It never means embracing or approving of their sins. "Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God" (James 4:4).

son of God

Tolerance appears as many times as Trinity, but is actually a more clearly described concept. Statements such as "bear one another's burdens," "he who has no sin cast the first stone," "why do you judge your brother," or "the fruit of the Spirit is ... patience" make it clear that Christians approach others with consideration, compassion, and attempts to understand where the other is.

Other statements such as "correct a brother carefully lest you fall into a trap," or "do not even eat with such a one" certainly appear to contradict the first. These however seem to be exceptions to the first desire and speak usually to correcting a Believer's gross violations of the faith. But even in these examples, the point is restoration, not condemnation.

Tolerance then is a key Christian concept and one we come to hate at our own peril.

You also seem to have "language confusion" syndrome like L2: the definition and useage of "tolerance" is not synomonous with bearing burdens -- bearing burdens is helping them handle or cope with their burdens; it is NOT tolerating the burdens. Your second scripture is just as faulty. The context is those who are sinful yet judging the sinful. Obviously that's hypocritical. We are told to judge those in the church, because we are to be righteous and holy and pure, and thus should be capable doing this correctly with those in the body who are yet carnally minded and don't discern the truth. "why do you judge your brother" is misappropriated also. What's the context on that one? James, isn't it? It's an arrogance, based upon material possessions, which has translated into a spiritual denigrating due to the other's material lack in comparison to our degree of having material possessions. This doesn't fit into "tolerance", and definitely not into the usage defined in this thread by the OP. Patience is not tolerance.

Have a dictionary? Webster's is useful: "Tolerance: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own". That seems to fairly accurately define the useage of that word in this thread, right? "Patience: bearing pains or trials calmly or without complaint; manifesting forebearance under provocation or strain; not hasty or impetuous; steadfast despite opposition, difficulty, or adversity; able or willing to bear." That's the useage of it in the verse that you quoted, not "tolerance".

"approach[ing] others with consideration, compassion, and attempts to understand where the other is" is proper and of God. That is not tolerance of their sin, though, when we use "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own". That would be wrong.

Now if we take one of the other applications/meanings of tolerance, do we have to conclude that we are to be tolerant of sin? Webster also defines "tolerance" as "the act of allowing something". Are we to allow sin when we have a clear choice about it? What does the scripture state regarding this? John was a spiritual idiot, by your stated standards, for he was beheaded for stating the truth regarding the sins that the leader was doing. And what does Paul state? He was much abused because of speaking up to the wicked about their sins.... thus it is obvious that he is pleasing God, else he wouldn't do that which would bring grief upon himself. He thought that it was fairly common sense that this was obvious, and that one should speak up against the sin. Or he was self proclaimed to be a spiritual and intellectual idiot, just as the Baptist was.

The scriptures state that God is longsuffering and patient, not giving the proper judgment upon the wicked, but being patient and giving them opportunity to turn to Him. Tolerance of their sins, though? The scriptures state repeatedly that He hates their sins, and can't stand it, and it even states that He foresook His only Son on the cross, when His Son because sin for us. No, NO, NOOOO tolerance there. Patience for those who don't know God, yes. Tolerance of their sin, no. And we have Paul exampling this for us, when he states, "I have already so judged...." regarding sinful people in the church. No tolerance there. But we see him write regarding patience, when he states that they are to forgive when the dude repented, and accept him back, lest he be destroyed by their maintaining intolerance of sin when the repentance has occurred. If God did that to us, well, we'd still be damned!

And for those who will get bent out of shape over my useage of the word "idiot", here's the definition from Webster's: "a silly or foolish person". Paul and the Baptist would have been silly or foolish to do what they did, if the statement that tolerance is patience be anywhere close to the truth, either scripturally or by the dictionary.

The very fact that they cry out "foul", and demand tolerance, proves that they are not tolerant themselves, else they would acquiesce to our position of not sinning in these things, without asking us to be "tolerant" of their sins! It is a self proven hypocrisy and misuse of the word tolerant. Basic logic and word definitions suffice to prove this most simple truth. Why must we insist upon blinding ourselves to both spiritual truth in the bible and dictionary definitions? It is simply because we love not the truth, but believe our personal take on things to be the truth instead. "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..." "every man did what was right in his own eyes". That is tolerance of lies and sin. And God soundly condemns it.